Search
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated All Is True (2018) in Movies
Jun 22, 2019 (Updated Sep 25, 2019)
I have reservations about anything that Kenneth Branagh is in on the big screen. I'm sorry but I'm going to say it... he needs to stop. Stay behind the camera or on stage. I'm already pre-disappointed for Death On The Nile.
Regardless of that feeling I was excited to see Judy Dench and Ian McKellen in action, it was also a nice surprise to see Ben Elton's name on it... I'm not sure how that had escaped my notice.
Even with those redeeming features I was left bored? Disappointed? No, definitely bored.
I know lots of different snippets about Shakespeare. Whether they're true or not always seems to be up for debate but there are plenty of facts out there. One of the things I had never heard before was this film's addition of the Shakespeare/Wriothesley friendship. By this point I was already feeling disengaged so adding it in pushed me even closer to the edge. I was actually annoyed to be presented with something completely unknown. I know that's mad.
The story as a whole wasn't going to be action-packed and therefore a little slower paced, but everything we were presented with didn't seem connected to anything else. One of the notes I made just said "nothing seems to have a real purpose" and I don't think that opinion changed by the time the film ended. I didn't understand the ultimate point of this film, I know it's about the end of his life and yet... *quizzical shrug*.
You say Ben Elton and you think Blackadder and The Thin Blue Line, at least I do. He's built for comedy and in this there just isn't any and it shows. Everything feels bland and is punctuated with silences that bring the awkwardness of the characters right out into the audience. Unfortunately a real awkwardness and not an "I identify with this character" one.
As for the star-studded cast, I enjoyed Judi Dench's performance the most but even that can't bring up the score on this for me. McKellen gave a fantastic performance but it didn't feel like it belonged in this film, it felt like he was acting in a Shakespeare play and not in a film about Shakespeare.
Had you taken Dench and McKellen out there would have been very little in this film to stop it from sliding into obscurity.
What you should do
I can't recommend this one, I wouldn't even bother when it appears on TV. It does have its audience somewhere though, as I and several other people heaved a sigh of relief when it ended the little old lady across the aisle exclaimed "ooooh weren't that lovely!"
Movie thing you wish you could take home
I would like to take home the two hours of my life I spent on this film, if that's possible?
Regardless of that feeling I was excited to see Judy Dench and Ian McKellen in action, it was also a nice surprise to see Ben Elton's name on it... I'm not sure how that had escaped my notice.
Even with those redeeming features I was left bored? Disappointed? No, definitely bored.
I know lots of different snippets about Shakespeare. Whether they're true or not always seems to be up for debate but there are plenty of facts out there. One of the things I had never heard before was this film's addition of the Shakespeare/Wriothesley friendship. By this point I was already feeling disengaged so adding it in pushed me even closer to the edge. I was actually annoyed to be presented with something completely unknown. I know that's mad.
The story as a whole wasn't going to be action-packed and therefore a little slower paced, but everything we were presented with didn't seem connected to anything else. One of the notes I made just said "nothing seems to have a real purpose" and I don't think that opinion changed by the time the film ended. I didn't understand the ultimate point of this film, I know it's about the end of his life and yet... *quizzical shrug*.
You say Ben Elton and you think Blackadder and The Thin Blue Line, at least I do. He's built for comedy and in this there just isn't any and it shows. Everything feels bland and is punctuated with silences that bring the awkwardness of the characters right out into the audience. Unfortunately a real awkwardness and not an "I identify with this character" one.
As for the star-studded cast, I enjoyed Judi Dench's performance the most but even that can't bring up the score on this for me. McKellen gave a fantastic performance but it didn't feel like it belonged in this film, it felt like he was acting in a Shakespeare play and not in a film about Shakespeare.
Had you taken Dench and McKellen out there would have been very little in this film to stop it from sliding into obscurity.
What you should do
I can't recommend this one, I wouldn't even bother when it appears on TV. It does have its audience somewhere though, as I and several other people heaved a sigh of relief when it ended the little old lady across the aisle exclaimed "ooooh weren't that lovely!"
Movie thing you wish you could take home
I would like to take home the two hours of my life I spent on this film, if that's possible?
The Lord of the Rings Sketchbook: Portfolio
Book
A sumptuous large-format hardback containing sketches and paintings from the illustrated Lord of the...
Sarah (7798 KP) rated The Exorcist in Opera House Manchester (Manchester, United Kingdom) in Shows
Jul 22, 2020
Brilliant set design
I went to watch The Exorcist at the Opera House in Manchester in October 2019. I've never been a huge fan of The Exorcist film, I think it's a tad overrated but I was intrigued to see how they'd bring a story like this to life on the stage. And they've put together a well produced and atmospheric show. The set design is brilliant and the effects are spot on, producing a chilly and at times scary show, which isn't something you'd usually expect in such a big theatre and a large audience. The show is that well produced that it's a shame it's rather let down by the acting. A lot of the acting seemed very over the top and exaggerated, and some was just plain poor. Which is a shame as there was a standout performance from Tristram Wymark as Burke who was downright hilarious and a welcome relief to the scarier aspects of the show. Also having Ian McKellen voice the demon is a work of genius. Hearing such a seasoned actor voice a horrible character is brilliant and the young girl miming him is impressively good, even if she does seem to overact at times.
Overall definitely worth seeing for the production if nothing else, and I would've marked a little higher had it not been for some of the acting!
Overall definitely worth seeing for the production if nothing else, and I would've marked a little higher had it not been for some of the acting!
Elli H Burton (1288 KP) rated The Hobbit Trilogy (2015) in Movies
Jun 14, 2019
Going On an Adventure
I was a late comer to J.R. Tolkien and LOTR so when The Hobbit came out I was super excited that I had more to delve into and fall in love with as I had with LOTR.
So yes - the films are super long but personally I didn't feel the length of the film (as some bad films feel twice as long and you just scream HURRY UP AND END) where as with The Hobbit at the end of Unexpected Journey I couldn't wait for the next one.
Obviously with this being made years after, the Actors from LOTR would have unfortunately aged but Sir. Ian Mckellen looks not a day older and although Orlando Bloom is obviously not in his early twenties anymore, it was easy to overlook. Bilbo Baggins had to be a different actor but I definitely think Martin Freeman was the man for the job. I also loved that in the beginning Elijah Wood made an appearance, making it genuinely feel like part of the LOTR we've all come to love.
The Battle of the Five Armies was the main film I have qualms with, after countless googles I still don't understand the Five Armies part, but that could just be me! Also, when Smaugs rain of terror is finally ended it sort of felt bittersweet and kind of Anti Climactic as it happens rather quickly into the film.
So yes - the films are super long but personally I didn't feel the length of the film (as some bad films feel twice as long and you just scream HURRY UP AND END) where as with The Hobbit at the end of Unexpected Journey I couldn't wait for the next one.
Obviously with this being made years after, the Actors from LOTR would have unfortunately aged but Sir. Ian Mckellen looks not a day older and although Orlando Bloom is obviously not in his early twenties anymore, it was easy to overlook. Bilbo Baggins had to be a different actor but I definitely think Martin Freeman was the man for the job. I also loved that in the beginning Elijah Wood made an appearance, making it genuinely feel like part of the LOTR we've all come to love.
The Battle of the Five Armies was the main film I have qualms with, after countless googles I still don't understand the Five Armies part, but that could just be me! Also, when Smaugs rain of terror is finally ended it sort of felt bittersweet and kind of Anti Climactic as it happens rather quickly into the film.
The Bandersnatch (199 KP) rated The Hobbit Trilogy (2015) in Movies
Nov 7, 2019
In Decembers of 2012, 2013 and 2014 the three movies of The Hobbit came out, The Hobbit: an unexpected journey, The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug and The Hobbit: Battle of the Five armies forming The Hobbit Trilogy. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayor and Newline Cinema each released part of the trilogy with Director Peter Jackson at the helm (he directed The Lord of the Rings trilogy too). The movies follow the book but have been expanded to include extra material from the Lord of the Rings appendices as well as having recurring characters from the Lord of the Rings Movies such as Gandalf (Sir Ian McKellen), Frodo Baggins (Elijah wood), Legolas (Orlando Bloom), Lord Elrond (Hugo Weaving), lady Galadriel (Cate Blanchett), Gollom/Smegol (Andy Sirkis) and Saruman (Sir Christopher Lee 1922-2015).
In my opinion whilst the movies were very good having pretty much been handled by the team who shot and produced The Lord of the Rings. It felt sort of stretched, I'm pretty sure they could have gotten away with having two movies maybe even just the one if they cut some of the extra material away. The Hobbit in my eyes was essentially its own story and having the extra material padding it up to three movies-whilst useful and giving us a glimpse of the world at large just clumped it a bit. Other than that it was a good set of movies and I'm grateful that the team behind the Lord of the Rings was behind these ones, kept a good thread of continuity going.
In my opinion whilst the movies were very good having pretty much been handled by the team who shot and produced The Lord of the Rings. It felt sort of stretched, I'm pretty sure they could have gotten away with having two movies maybe even just the one if they cut some of the extra material away. The Hobbit in my eyes was essentially its own story and having the extra material padding it up to three movies-whilst useful and giving us a glimpse of the world at large just clumped it a bit. Other than that it was a good set of movies and I'm grateful that the team behind the Lord of the Rings was behind these ones, kept a good thread of continuity going.
Macbeth
William Shakespeare and Robert S. Miola
8.2
Rate It
Book
The Norton Critical Edition is again based on the First Folio (1623), the only authoritative text of...
Shakespeare in 100 Objects: Treasures from the Victoria and Albert Museum
Book
Within the collections of the Victoria and Albert Museum in London, the world's leading museum of...
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Cats (2019) in Movies
Nov 20, 2020
Cut what worked in the musical and left in what didn't
I had heard that the movie version of the mega-Broadway hit musical CATS was a "total trainwreck" with bizarre performances and CGI that was incomplete and/or incompetently done making these CATS look more like FREAKS, so I was looking forward to a "so bad it's good" experience at the film. But, instead of being horrified or bemused, I felt another emotion while watching this...
BOREDOM.
I've never been a real fan of the Broadway production - I witnessed the original cast back in the early 1980's and had a follow-up viewing of the show on Broadway in the mid-to-late '90's when 2 people I know were in the cast and both times I enjoyed the music (for the most part) and the dancing was SUPERB, but I was left disappointed by the characters and the plot (or lack thereof) of this show.
And...that's the biggest problem with the film version of CATS, Director Tom Hooper (LES MISERABLES) decided to focus this film ON the characters and the performances - headlined by such stalwarts as Dame Judy Dench, Sir Ian McKellen, Idris, Elba, Ray Winstone, Jennifer Hudson, James Cordon and Rebel Wilson - and ignore the spectacle of the musical numbers and, most heinously, ignoring the dancing aspect of this musical. This approach, quite frankly, just did not work.
Now...add onto this questionable CGI (I'm being kind), a languid pace (I'm being kind) and performers who were miscast (I'm looking at you Idris Elba, Rebel Wilson, Ray Winstone and...if I'm being honest...Ian McKellan and Judy Dench), and don't get me started on Jason Derullo's RumTum Tugger and Taylor Swift's Bumbalurna (really?) - they were just plain awful. Derullo, especially, turned a fun, energizing driving character into a boring embodiment of all that is wrong with this film (okay...Rebel Wilson was worse, but still....) the only players in this film that kept my attention were stage performers like Robbie Fairchild (Munkustrap) and Francesca Hayward (Victoria) and they were sidelined for the most part by the bigger names and had their dance numbers eliminated and/or truncated.
I wish they would have gone for the campy "so bad, it's good" style of filmmaking - it, at least, would have kept my interest, but the movie as it is, did not. I was happy when the "Jellicle Cat" was selected at the end - I knew this experience would be over soon.
Letter Grade D
2 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(OfMarquis)
BOREDOM.
I've never been a real fan of the Broadway production - I witnessed the original cast back in the early 1980's and had a follow-up viewing of the show on Broadway in the mid-to-late '90's when 2 people I know were in the cast and both times I enjoyed the music (for the most part) and the dancing was SUPERB, but I was left disappointed by the characters and the plot (or lack thereof) of this show.
And...that's the biggest problem with the film version of CATS, Director Tom Hooper (LES MISERABLES) decided to focus this film ON the characters and the performances - headlined by such stalwarts as Dame Judy Dench, Sir Ian McKellen, Idris, Elba, Ray Winstone, Jennifer Hudson, James Cordon and Rebel Wilson - and ignore the spectacle of the musical numbers and, most heinously, ignoring the dancing aspect of this musical. This approach, quite frankly, just did not work.
Now...add onto this questionable CGI (I'm being kind), a languid pace (I'm being kind) and performers who were miscast (I'm looking at you Idris Elba, Rebel Wilson, Ray Winstone and...if I'm being honest...Ian McKellan and Judy Dench), and don't get me started on Jason Derullo's RumTum Tugger and Taylor Swift's Bumbalurna (really?) - they were just plain awful. Derullo, especially, turned a fun, energizing driving character into a boring embodiment of all that is wrong with this film (okay...Rebel Wilson was worse, but still....) the only players in this film that kept my attention were stage performers like Robbie Fairchild (Munkustrap) and Francesca Hayward (Victoria) and they were sidelined for the most part by the bigger names and had their dance numbers eliminated and/or truncated.
I wish they would have gone for the campy "so bad, it's good" style of filmmaking - it, at least, would have kept my interest, but the movie as it is, did not. I was happy when the "Jellicle Cat" was selected at the end - I knew this experience would be over soon.
Letter Grade D
2 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(OfMarquis)
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Beauty and the Beast (2017) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019 (Updated Jun 10, 2019)
A tale as old as time
Whichever big wig down at Disney decided it would be a good idea to remake all of their animated classics using live-action is surely due a massive promotion. The studio’s reputation is soaring after the acquisition of Marvel and Lucasfilm and this new way of thinking is paying off at the box office.
Last year’s The Jungle Book earned just shy of $1billion worldwide, their Marvel Cinematic Universe has taken upwards of $5billion and don’t get me started on Star Wars. Continuing the studio’s trend of remaking their animated features is Beauty & the Beast, but does this modern day reimagining of a fairly modern classic conjure up memories of 1991?
Belle (Emma Watson), a bright, beautiful and independent young woman, is taken prisoner by a beast (Dan Stevens) in its castle. Despite her fears, she befriends the castle’s enchanted staff including Cogsworth (Ian McKellen) and Lumiere (Ewan McGregor) and tries her best to learn to look beyond the beast’s hideous exterior, allowing her to recognise the kind heart and soul of the true prince that hides on the inside.
There were gasps of shock when Harry Potter actress Emma Watson was cast as Belle, but thankfully after sitting through 129 minutes of her singing and dancing, there is no reason to be concerned. She slots into the role of a Disney princess with ease, though it’s still incredibly difficult to see her as anything but the talented witch from Hogwarts.
The rest of the cast is very good with the exception of Ewan McGregor’s dreadful French accent. It can be forgiven however because the sense of nostalgia that the castle’s staff bring to the table is wonderful. Ian McKellen, Emma Thompson, Stanley Tucci all lend their voices with Thompson taking over from Angela Lansbury beautifully. Her rendition of the iconic titular song brings goose bumps.
Elsewhere, Luke Evans is an excellent choice to play villainous Gaston. It’s hard to imagine anyone better to play the gluttonous womaniser and Josh Gad is sublime as his sidekick.
Dan Stevens’ transformation into Beast is one that’s a little bit harder to judge. There is no doubt he is up to the task of playing this iconic character, but the limits of current motion capture technology can sometimes render him a little playdoh like. There are fleeting moments when the illusion is shattered because of something as trivial as the way his fur moves.
Nevertheless, the rest of the special effects are absolutely top notch. The costumes and the set design all integrate perfectly with the naturally heavy use of CGI to create a film that harks back to its predecessor in every way.
Whilst not as dark as last year’s The Jungle Book, Beauty & the Beast is still a deeply disturbing film at times, made all the more so by its recreation in live-action. Young children may find it a troubling watch, a reason why the BBFC has awarded it a PG rating rather than the typical U that most other Disney features receive.
Overall, Beauty & the Beast is a faithful recreation of its 1991 predecessor and that comes with its own set of challenges. The animated version is widely regarded as one of Disney’s best films, so director Bill Condon (Dreamgirls, Twilight) had massive shoes to fill. For the most part, he’s succeeded in crafting a visually stunning and poignant movie that’s only drawbacks are its length and poor motion capture. Much better than Cinderella, but not quite as ground-breaking as The Jungle Book, it’s a lovely watch for all the family.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/03/17/a-tale-as-old-as-time-beauty-the-beast-review/
Last year’s The Jungle Book earned just shy of $1billion worldwide, their Marvel Cinematic Universe has taken upwards of $5billion and don’t get me started on Star Wars. Continuing the studio’s trend of remaking their animated features is Beauty & the Beast, but does this modern day reimagining of a fairly modern classic conjure up memories of 1991?
Belle (Emma Watson), a bright, beautiful and independent young woman, is taken prisoner by a beast (Dan Stevens) in its castle. Despite her fears, she befriends the castle’s enchanted staff including Cogsworth (Ian McKellen) and Lumiere (Ewan McGregor) and tries her best to learn to look beyond the beast’s hideous exterior, allowing her to recognise the kind heart and soul of the true prince that hides on the inside.
There were gasps of shock when Harry Potter actress Emma Watson was cast as Belle, but thankfully after sitting through 129 minutes of her singing and dancing, there is no reason to be concerned. She slots into the role of a Disney princess with ease, though it’s still incredibly difficult to see her as anything but the talented witch from Hogwarts.
The rest of the cast is very good with the exception of Ewan McGregor’s dreadful French accent. It can be forgiven however because the sense of nostalgia that the castle’s staff bring to the table is wonderful. Ian McKellen, Emma Thompson, Stanley Tucci all lend their voices with Thompson taking over from Angela Lansbury beautifully. Her rendition of the iconic titular song brings goose bumps.
Elsewhere, Luke Evans is an excellent choice to play villainous Gaston. It’s hard to imagine anyone better to play the gluttonous womaniser and Josh Gad is sublime as his sidekick.
Dan Stevens’ transformation into Beast is one that’s a little bit harder to judge. There is no doubt he is up to the task of playing this iconic character, but the limits of current motion capture technology can sometimes render him a little playdoh like. There are fleeting moments when the illusion is shattered because of something as trivial as the way his fur moves.
Nevertheless, the rest of the special effects are absolutely top notch. The costumes and the set design all integrate perfectly with the naturally heavy use of CGI to create a film that harks back to its predecessor in every way.
Whilst not as dark as last year’s The Jungle Book, Beauty & the Beast is still a deeply disturbing film at times, made all the more so by its recreation in live-action. Young children may find it a troubling watch, a reason why the BBFC has awarded it a PG rating rather than the typical U that most other Disney features receive.
Overall, Beauty & the Beast is a faithful recreation of its 1991 predecessor and that comes with its own set of challenges. The animated version is widely regarded as one of Disney’s best films, so director Bill Condon (Dreamgirls, Twilight) had massive shoes to fill. For the most part, he’s succeeded in crafting a visually stunning and poignant movie that’s only drawbacks are its length and poor motion capture. Much better than Cinderella, but not quite as ground-breaking as The Jungle Book, it’s a lovely watch for all the family.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/03/17/a-tale-as-old-as-time-beauty-the-beast-review/